Blake v. Berryhill
ORDER denying 3 Plaintiff's motion for the admission of attorney Karl E. Osterhout as counsel pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 09/15/17. (emw)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00241-MR
NICOLE LEE BLAKE,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for the
admission of attorney Karl E. Osterhout as counsel pro hac vice. [Doc. 3].
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court will deny the motion.
Pro hac vice admission is for the admission of an attorney from another
jurisdiction for a single case.
See LCvR 83.1(B)(1) (“A pro hac vice
admission is defined as an admission to the Bar of this Court in a particular
case….”) (emphasis added). The admission of an attorney pro hac vice is a
matter within the discretion of the particular judge to whom the case is
Pro hac vice admission is not intended to be a substitute for admission
to the bar of this Court by those who regularly practice here. The present
motion is the 17th time that Mr. Osterhout has sought pro hac vice admission
in this District. This, in the Court’s view, constitutes regular practice.
Notably, counsel represents that he has been admitted to the bar in 31
other jurisdictions. [Doc. 3-4 at 1-2]. Apparently, he practices regularly in
many courts. If, however, Mr. Osterhout desires to practice regularly in this
Court he must apply for regular admission.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for the
admission of attorney Karl E. Osterhout as counsel pro hac vice [Doc. 3] is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 15, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?